State v. Soto
817 N.W.2d 848
Wis.2012Background
- The Supreme Court of Wisconsin certified questions of statutory interpretation from an appeal challenging Soto's postsentencing motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
- Soto contends his Wis. Stat. § 971.04(l)(g) right to be in the same courtroom as the presiding judge at the plea hearing was violated by videoconferencing.
- The plea hearing occurred with Soto in Trempealeau County and the judge presiding from a different county, using videoconferencing.
- Soto expressly consented to the use of videoconferencing for the plea hearing after thorough questioning by the court.
- The circuit court denied Soto’s postconviction motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
- The court of appeals certified the appeal, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, holding waiver by videoconferencing was valid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 971.04(l)(g) creates a right to be present in the same courtroom at pleas | Soto | Soto | Yes, the right exists at plea-jury pronouncement |
| Whether Soto validly waived his right to be present | State | Soto | Waiver valid; Soto knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily waived |
| Whether videoconferencing for the plea hearing complied with statutory requirements | State | Soto | Record supports proper functioning and consent; waiver valid |
| What standard controls waiver analysis for § 971.04(l)(g) rights | State | Soto | Waiver appropriate for important rights, not forfeiture; requires knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver |
| Whether postconviction relief reversal is warranted given waiver | State | Soto | Circuit court’s ruling affirmed; no manifest injustice warranting withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Koopmans, 210 Wis. 2d 670 (1997) (waiver of right to be present at sentencing; absentia not waiver)
- State v. Ndina, 315 Wis. 2d 653 (2009) (distinction between forfeiture and waiver of rights)
- State v. Huebner, 235 Wis. 2d 486 (2000) (importance of waiver rights in fair trial)
- State v. Denson, 335 Wis. 2d 681 (2011) (colloquy not always required for waiver of certain rights; evidentiary hearing in some cases)
- Rao v. WMA Sec., Inc., 310 Wis. 2d 623 (2008) (jury-trial waiver framework; different showing than other rights)
- Brunton v. Nuvell Credit Corp., 325 Wis. 2d 135 (2010) (knowing of the right essential to waiver; right to venue example)
- State v. Smith, 342 Wis. 2d 710 (2012) (informing about rights essential to waiver of jury trial)
- Kalal v. Cir. Ct. for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (2004) (common, ordinary meaning in statutory interpretation)
- Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 309 Wis. 2d 541 (2008) (plain meaning and context in statutory interpretation)
- Vennemann, 180 Wis. 2d 81 (1993) (limited context; postconviction proceedings; not controlling for present)